Debate contribution: Tackling Scams and Improving Public Protection
Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on .
- MLA
- Ms Emma Sheerin
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Tackling Scams and Improving Public Protection
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5296426
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I welcome the motion. We have tabled a small amendment to close the gap left by not including the cross-border agencies in the motion and to make sure that there is no scope for criminals to avail themselves of that gap. We often say that crime knows no border. We are currently in a storm that knows no border. Whilst crime might know no border, it definitely exploits the border on this island, and scams are one example of how that can happen. I agree with a lot of what the proposer of the motion said. We can see a rise in such scams, which are becoming more and more sophisticated, to the point where even those of us who might consider ourselves to be fairly tech-savvy — I assure Members that staff on the fourth floor of the Building would not count me among them — who are familiar with social media and how things should be worded and who, like me, work online every day find ourselves stopping in our tracks and almost getting caught out by some of the messages and emails that come through.
It has already been said that scams target our older and more vulnerable people in particular. It is about the shame that comes with it. There are ramifications such as loss of earnings and, a lot of the time, of savings, and the real-life implications that that has for people. As well as that, however, they may be embarrassed to report it or even to tell family and friends. They feel that they have been made fools of. It is the exploitation of people in their most vulnerable moments that makes that type of crime so horrible and nasty. We want to see joint working. We want the Minister to work with the rest of the Executive, the PSNI, the gardaí and the cross-border joint agency task force (JATF) to ensure that we clamp down on the scams and the people who are involved — they are very manipulative; increasingly, it is criminal gangs and groups that carry out such scams — so that more of our constituents do not fall prey to them. There are legislative changes that can be made. In the interim, however, we can send out these messages: "Think twice", "Check, check, check" and, "Ask the question". People contact me as an MLA, as I am sure they do other MLAs, to ask, "Is this right enough?", checking the veracity of a message or an email that they received. I always say, "Ask the question, because you are better to be safe than sorry". A clear message needs to come from the Assembly today that we do not accept the situation, that we will challenge it and that we want to support people, particularly those who are vulnerable, who may fall prey to those sorts of crimes.
486 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.46 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.35 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.16 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:08 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.